On October 25th, an appeal court in California ruled this week that Uber and LYFT, the online car Hailing service providers, must classify their driver status in California as employees rather than as independent contractors. The ruling may lead to the failure of California 22 proposed by the two online car Hailing service providers. Uber and LYFT may object to the ruling and appeal. < / P > < p > earlier, under a California law, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the city prosecutors of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco filed a lawsuit requiring Uber and LYFT to identify their drivers in California as employees. According to the provisions of the law, only those who work “beyond the normal range” can be classified as contractors or contract workers of the company. However, Uber and LYFT insist that the law does not apply to both companies and that they should be exempted. In addition, the two companies have threatened to stop online car hailing in California if drivers are forced to be classified as employees. < p > < p > California proposal 22 was proposed by Uber and LYFT and other related enterprises to replace the law that classifies drivers of online car Hailing platforms as employees. < / P > < p > drivers of Uber and LYFT will be guaranteed basic benefits such as overtime, sick leave and reimbursement if they are classified as employees rather than independent contractors. < p > < p > Uber and LYFT believe that reclassifying their drivers as employees would cause irreparable harm to the company. But in this week’s ruling, the judge said that by rectifying the violations, neither company would suffer any “serious or irreparable harm” and that their respective financial burdens “would not rise to the level of irreparable harm.” < / P > < p > currently, Uber is facing a class action on California Proposition 22. The lawsuit claims Uber is illegally intimidating drivers to support a vote aimed at classifying them as independent contractors. The lawsuit was filed by two Uber drivers, Benjamin Valdez and Hector Castellanos, as well as two California non-profit organizations. < / P > < p > the plaintiff argued in the lawsuit that Uber encouraged its drivers and delivery workers to support California Proposition 22 through Uber’s driver scheduling application. < / P > < p > “this is an absurd lawsuit, groundless, totally for the sake of media attention, regardless of the facts.” “It doesn’t distract people’s attention from the fact that most drivers support California Proposition 22 because they know it will improve their lives and protect the way they like to work,” Uber spokesman Matt Kallman said in a statement to the media Apple extends AppleCare + purchase period: users can decide within 60 days